It's annoying as all hell when some nutjob is associated with a conservative movement.

It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say this nutjob is associated with the gay marriage movement.

he's just crazy. Our various disagreements are not affected. Abortion's wrongfulness is not alleviated when some monster bombs a clinic. Gabby Giffords doesn't become right about politics when some monster shoots her. The Gay marriage movement shouldn't be ashamed of some nutjob.

This should be obvious, and I hope the right doesn't make hay out of this psycho. But I also hope the left doesn't make hay when it has the chance. It's annoying as hell.

The more vocal contigent on the right is quite scared of many things - libruls, gays, muslins, etc - and they are known for being pants-wetting cowards.

They, as masters of projection, may be projecting their willingness to be cowed in attempts to scare others ("we came unarmed this time").

Will this shooting cause them to back off? Not saying that is a good thing, but I wonder what their reaction will be.

You sound deranged. But your reaction is noted.

No, I do not think people are going to change their political views out of fear of gunmen from the gay rights movement. That would be silly.

I think the Chik Fil A thing is that people want the right to have their conservative views without democrat mayors becoming fascists about it. It's none of their business what someone's political views are.

If someone wants to protest those views, that's what America's all about. If someone wants to shut down businesses with the 'wrong' opinions, that is a different matter. And if someone is musing about violence scaring people out of expressing their opinions, they are deranged.

LasersHurt:Yes, the LGBT community is so well known for their angry, hateful rhetoric inciting violence. duh.

I realize you meant this as a joke, but in all seriousness, they have consistently dehumanized their ideological opponents by calling them "anti-gay," "bigots," "homophobes," "hateful," and the like for quite a long time. The Family Research Council has even been officially designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And then this Chik-fil-a thing happens. Dan Cathy, a known conservative Christian who directs a small fraction of his otherwise laudable charitable giving toward "anti-gay" causes, responds to a direct question from a journalist who works for a Christian publication by saying that he supports "traditional" marriage and the "biblical" understanding of family, and for two or three weeks solid, everyone loses their shiat and acts like he'shiatler reincarnated. Frankly, it's amazing that it took this long for something like this to happen.

Conservatives, I get it, I really do. Every time someone goes in a spree shooting everyone rushes to blame your politics. So now you're all gleefully rushing to talk about the "hate filled left", etc. Go for it.

The thing is, you've always told the left that they were stupid for blaming right wing politics for the actions of a lone nutbag.

But now the roles are reversed. Trying to mount a political attack in this case looks even stupider than when the left does it, because this guy was so incompetent he didn't even manage to kill anyone.

So have your day in the sun. But the American right looks even more like a handbag-clutching, stranger-fearing shut-ins than before as this thing begins to reach a fever pitch.

Because the score is still bazillionty-eleven to one. Sure, some gay activist got pissed and tried to shoot up some people on the right.

But that doesn't change the fact that the American left has been defunct as a source of domestic terrorism since the 70's. The vast majority of domestic terrorism (here meaning acts of political violence) since the Reagan years has been from the right, even leaving out the cases where the media jumped to inaccurate conclusions. Timmy McV alone accounts for more political violence than the left has brought to the table for decades.

So everyone have their fun with this, but you all - left and right - just look like a bynch of histrionic cry babies to me.

theMightyRegeya:Bullseyed: Walker: I'm shocked that the Family Research Council, a "hate group" according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is causing hate. Hate begets hate. Don't put it out there if you don't want it back.

Damn those jews for causing nazis. Damn them!

It was the Jews' fault for being the 1%.

Na, that the Christians fault. Christians were not allowed to charge interest when lending money, so the Jews had to run the banks. Since the Jews ran the banks, People like Hitler and Obama hate them.

Bullseyed:Walker: I'm shocked that the Family Research Council, a "hate group" according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is causing hate. Hate begets hate. Don't put it out there if you don't want it back.

xander450:Bullseyed: odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.

Uh, off the top of my head, Lee Harvey Oswald?

Right, but this is sort of the point. There was a good deal of violent liberal terrorism in the 70's (most of it outside the US, with notable exceptions, i.e. the Weather Underground). There's very little now - liberal terrorism is these days mostly limited to property crimes. Conservative terrorism, on the other hand, has been remarkably violent for the last couple decades (see list from earlier post).

I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion about why that would be, but pretending that's not the case just makes you look like you don't know how to read.

Well yeah... the lefties were blowing up cars and shooting the president when they weren't getting elected to office. Communists and socialists don't have any reason to do that anymore since we've had centrists, leftists and communists for presidents for the last 20 years or so.

Unless Obama gets assassinated by someone wearing a KKK outfit, the left is still "ahead" on the violence scale for the current era.

Let's not build a straw man and put words in my mouth. I never said I supported one side of the other. You are arguing with yourself.

Someone said they were offended by the hate speech of "burn in hell." I pointed out that both sides often have said nasty things, both left and right. I did not specify FRC or the LGBT. That was all you. I'm a moderate, I have no horse in this race. Stop trying to make it seem like I'm supporting the FRC, it's tacky.

Kind of funny that people who don't believe in hell would be offended by being sent there. You can't expect anyone on the left to assemble a coherent logical string though.

A pistol is a handgun with a chamber that is integral with the barrel, such as a pepperbox revolver - as opposed to a standard (single-barrel) revolver, wherein the chamber is separate from the barrel as a revolving cylinder.

A handgun is a firearm designed to be handheld, in either one or both hands. This characteristic differentiates handguns as a general class of firearms from long guns such as rifles and shotguns.

odinsposse:Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.

dukwbutter:fluffy2097: dukwbutter: Actually, you know nothing about guns and almost all 9mm's are "automatics". This means "semi-automatic". One trigger pull = 1 round fired = "automatic". The more you know, libtards.

lol.

I'm not even a gun person and I know you are wrong.

A manual gun has to be cocked each time you want to pull the trigger. A pump shotgun would be an example of this. Another example would be a bolt action rifle.

A semi-automatic gun ejects the spent shell casing and loads another round into the chamber, as well as cocking the weapon, allowing a shot to be fired every single time you pull the trigger without the shooter having to do anything else. Example, a 1911. a Glock 9mm, Desert Eagle

A fully automatic weapon is basically the same as an semi-automatic weapon but is designed to allow the weapon to cycle and fire rounds as long as the trigger is pulled. Since this is generally wasteful due to recoil pushing you off target, Automatic weapons frequently have a selector allowing you to use them in Semi automatic fire, fully automatic, and possibly a 3 round burst. Example: M16.

Fully automatic weapons are really hard to get ahold of legally unless you want to join the army and use an M16. Need a lot of permits and permission slips.

Some semi-automatic weapons can be modified to fire fully automatically, but it's highly illegal. I imagine a lot of semi-automatic weapons aren't able to withstand that kind of force without breaking down too

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Fully automatic weapons are very easy to get, proving you have no idea what you're talking about. All you need is a class III firearms permit. People do, in fact, routinely refer to semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns as "automatics", and, if you knew anything about guns (aside from what you read on the intertubes), then you'd know this.

And now a bit of education...

1. No one uses the term "manual gun" though I know what you are getting at...weapons that require the user to do something to load another round into the chamber. This includes pump action, lever action, bolt action. Rate of fire on such weapons can be nearly but not quite as fast as a semi-auto.

2. Revolvers can be single action or double action. They are almost exclusive handguns, but in the past they could also be shotguns or rifles. In a single-action revolver, the hammer is manually cocked, usually with the thumb of the firing or supporting hand. This action advances the cylinder to the next round and locks the cylinder in place with the chamber aligned with the barrel. The trigger, when pulled, releases the hammer, which fires the round in the chamber. To fire again, the hammer must be manually cocked again. Single action revolvers could be modified so that they could be "fanned out", firing rapidly, but not as rapidly as a semi-auto. In double-action, the stroke of the trigger pull generates three actions: (1) the hammer is pulled back to the cocked position (2) while the cylinder is being indexed to the next round, and then (3) the hammer is released to strike the firing pin. Thus double action means that a cocking action separate from the trigger pull is unnecessary; and every trigger pull will result in a complete cycle. Double action revolvers can be modified to be "fanned out" like a single action revolver, but they are already effectively semi-automatic.

3. A semi-automatic firearms fires a round with each pull of the trigger--that is also its effective rate of fire. An AR-15 is not capable of firing at the same effective rate of fire as an Army M-16A3, contrary to media reports. Semiautomatic rifles made to resemble the AK-47 are not a true AK-47s, contrary to Barrack Obama. They may or may not have a detachable magazine. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles can be semi-automatic.

4. Selective fire weapons can be fired on semiautomatic or automatic. Once primed, an automatic weapon will continue to expel spent rounds, chamber fresh rounds, and fire so long as the trigger is held down. Because of the recoil involved with selective fire weapons, they usually appear only as rifles, carbines, or submachine guns (essentially carbine-like weapons that fire pistol ammo used for close combat). Armies around the world issued selective fire weapons to their combat troops starting in World War II, though they were available before that time (the Thompson submachine gun being the most famous). Many army now issue selective fire weapons that fire semiautomatic or in burst mode. Burst mode automatically fires a fixed amount of ammunition so long as the trigger is held down. All selective fire weapons are magazine fed or less commonly, belt fed. US law prevents the ownership of selective fire weapons except to those who have special (and very expensive) permits.

5. Automatic weapons are weapons that are used primarily for firing in automatic mode, though some are actually selective fire weapons. They are usually operated by a crew that consists of a gunner and an ammo bearer who helps reload the weapon. Some machine guns require larger crews as the loading process and maintenance of the weapons is fairly labor intensive. Automatic weapons are with a few exceptions found exclusively in the hands of military units. Yes, it is possible for a civilian in the US to purchase a .50 cal machine gun, a typical crew-served automatic weapon. Expect to have a "working relationship" with the local BATF office--by that I mean bend over, spread cheeks, it makes the microscope go in easier. It is not easy to obtain one, they are very expensive, forget getting brand new, and only dedicated collectors even try.

6. Referring to semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns as "automatics" - I've heard the term used for semi-auto pistols, but never for rifles or shotguns.

7. "Machine gun" - A heavy, crew served automatic fire weapon. By popular lore and Hollywood, any military style weapon capable of automatic fire or giving the appearance of being capable of automatic fire.

8. "Street sweepers" - These are shotguns that are selective fire weapons. Illegal in the US for a civilian to own one. Actually shotguns are subject to other restrictions as well, such as barrel length, that rifles are not.

Yes. They should stick to peaceful statements, like telling their detractors to die, that god hates them, god hates America because it permits them to live, that they are what's wrong with America, and they're going to hell.

Ker_Thwap:I'm a moderate, so I tend to piss off twice as many people. That said, I see plenty of hateful left wing speech also. The most recent example I can think of was "I hope every Chik Fil A franchise owner and his family starves." I don't think people even stop to consider how things they say can be hateful when they're all caught up in being moral.

I would not consider an "I hope" to be hatespeech. If someone had said "Every Chick-Fil-A franchise owner is a pedophile" (which is the same as what FRC did) I'd consider that hatespeech. No one goes out and shoots someone because someone hopes they starve. If you're saying people have committed crimes, and the cops won't do anything about it, you're inviting the mentally unstable to do your dirty work for you.Of course, then you have idiots who claim there is no hatespeech because you need to have a mind reader to know why people say things. Or as I call those folk...Idiots.

Hatespeech is for people too cowardly to stand behind their actions, and too crazy to tell the truth.

PiffMan420:Watch the FRC start whining about their hate group status on right-wing media after this shiat. "They painted a target on our backs" will be the line. They just won a major propaganda victory against the gay rights movement and can demonize activists like never before..

The FRC started this whine about 10 minutes after the incident. If you ask their supporters if they approve of the actions that got the FRC said label, they shut up and go away.

Rostin:LasersHurt: They're not "dehumanizing" them by calling them anti-gay, or bigots, or homophobes. They're accurately labelling them. Those are just adjectives - adjectives that apply to humans, of course, who are individuals, alive, and worthy of not being killed.

I'm certainly glad that you recognize that they are human individuals who don't deserve to be killed, but I stand by what I said. When we resort to labeling people based on what we believe their motivations to be while ignoring what they actually say, we have ceased to treat them like fellow human beings. These words are not just "accurate labels" for people. They are specifically calculated to create an emotional response and to short circuit empathy. It's very common to hear people say things like, "We don't need to listen to them; they're bigots, so it doesn't matter."

My point is this - you rarely to never see pro-LGBT people recommending violence specifically. They are very public about their opinions of people who don't support LGBT rights, sure, but that's not an incitement to violence. I find that's a specific requirement that's often glossed over in these matters, on either side of the ideological fence. Sometimes people overreact to disagreeing by thinking it's an incitement to violence. Of course some people overreact by shooting people, and, well, that's bad.

That is a fair point, but it doesn't change the fact that people on both sides are guilty of treating their opponents as less than human in the way that I described.

... They actually say that they do not support equal rights for homosexuals. That's not a subtle inference.

Arcanum:I'm pretty conservative. Most here would think I'm very conservative.

It's annoying as all hell when some nutjob is associated with a conservative movement.

It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say this nutjob is associated with the gay marriage movement.

he's just crazy. Our various disagreements are not affected. Abortion's wrongfulness is not alleviated when some monster bombs a clinic. Gabby Giffords doesn't become right about politics when some monster shoots her. The Gay marriage movement shouldn't be ashamed of some nutjob.

This should be obvious, and I hope the right doesn't make hay out of this psycho. But I also hope the left doesn't make hay when it has the chance. It's annoying as hell.

Here's the difference. In their zeal to project a macho Law-and-order, Go-go-military, red-meat image republicans - not conservatives, but republicans specifically - use violent and war like imagery that encourages their nutballs to buy guns and think about using them against their perceived enemies. Combine that with the NRA making the GOP their biatch and you have a situation where it's NOT just crazy people doing horrible things, it's specifically easily led, angry people gravitating toward angry, blame filled republican rhetoric that do horrible things specifically targeting the government and democrats.

You can say it's just crazy people, but the numbers do not lie. For every liberal nutjob killing people, there are scores of GOP inspired deaths. And by the way, liberals generally don't give a fark what you do so long as you don't discriminate against other people, so the persecution of Right wing nutjobs against their "Way of life" is unfounded. What IS NOT unfounded is the liberal argument that laws are specifically being passed to outlaw THEIR way of life, like laws forbidding partners from seeing loved ones in the hospital because they aren't "related" OR laws making Civil unions for gay folks illegal so they can't buy a house together, co-own a car or really anything that makes life more convenient OR that travesty of a bankruptcy law that shields the rich when they get into trouble but cripples the poor OR the selectively enforced war on drugs that is really a war on brown people with drugs.

Quite frankly, you look at who is oppressing whom and you wonder why there aren't more liberal on conservative violently politically motivated crimes. Then again, rational people, no matter how motivated and spun up with rhetoric will not do these kinds of things and it takes a rational person to realize that rich white straight people have gamed the system to perpetuate their own interests and be mad about that.

Pish, tosh, they were labeled a hate group for calling people who were not pedophiles pedophiles. There are anti-gay groups that hold the same moronic views as FRC without the accusing people of crimes they didn't commit thing. If people want to claim FRC is about family values, ask them what the family value in lying about people is.

They got lucky, frankly, one day someone else who is a little deranged is going to take them seriously and shoot the 'pedophiles' before they can 'hurt more kids.'

...and on that day, as per usual, FRC will still defend its rhetoric as having nothing to do with what's happening around it. Their consistent doubling down on the 'we can't be responsible if people believe us when we lie' stuff will eventually cause them to lose a civil suit that ends in them being bankrupt...and they'll blame liberal judges, not the whole 'caught in the act of lying' thing.

If you want to be anti-gay families, and pro-homophobia, good for you, but if the only way you can do it is by lying, cheating, or breaking the law, you've got to wonder why you wouldn't embrace the term hate group for yourself, like the neonazis do.

colon_pow:well if they support traditional family values, that means they are hate-mongers and should be destroyed.totally justifiable.

If someone snapped and tried to shoot up the office of a white supremacist group in the 60s, then they should of course be prosecuted as well. You can't just go around shooting people, no matter how reprehensible they are.

But being coy about why the attempted shooting took place and using euphemisms like "traditional family values" just makes you look like an idiot - so you might as well just get off that cross and get on with your day.

Carth:question for the arm chair lawyers out there. If CNN said the shooting was politically motivated and it was later proved not to be would they be liable for anything?

Of course not. 1st Amendment and all that. Look at the Gabby Giffords situation -- people were crawling all over themselves trying to connect that to a political motivation but it turns out it was just a crazy.

When you actively work to restrict someone from life's greatest aspect, love, you may see a less than peachy response. Honestly for such a repressed group it does make me wonder how they have maintained an incredibly peaceful (with very rare exceptions) civil rights approach. Yet those that are doing the oppression are allowed to spew their hate and vitriol with relative impunity because they hide behind a book about a religion that they know nothing about.

While this blogger is projecting the actions/beliefs of one individual to an entire community... That's pretty much what every single group with an agenda does, left or right.

For everyone's preaching about how their group alone is the one full of kindness and light, it doesn't stop any of them from cutting me off on the highway when they're in a hurry. People are just idiots no matter if they have Coexist bumper stickers or Jesus Fish bumper stickers.

Highroller48:I'm always amazed at how few peopole konw the dirfference between "Semi-Automatic" and "Automatic".

It's very simple, folks...If more than one bullet comes out when you squeeze the trigger once (a la Robocop), only then is it an "automatic".

Technically speaking, 'automatic' in reference to a handgun can mean semi-automatic. It refers to automatic loading (rather than automatic firing like colloquially used), is in contrast to revolvers or derringers.

Before we all jump on the condemnation bandwagon, let's remember that other people have done much worse things. While I don't condone his shooting of innocent people, at least he wasn't rude to a Chick-fil-a worker in the drive-thru window.